|
Post by philipoes on Sept 8, 2008 22:33:38 GMT 1
shhhhtttt, that's what I'm doing, delete youre post LOL Hmm, competition, although I bet you're a bit more professional.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 9, 2008 14:41:05 GMT 1
sumary: Always keep in mind real life cycling and this game should be as close as possible. And that just isn't the case at the moment so it should be changed. I don't agree, realism is important but should not interfear with "gameplay" which is even more important. SO I agree with Nikeboy and Gelies. I guess youre used to Hattrick where the reality is also farfetched... But look at the game sokker where the game is very close to reality and mucht more fun.
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Sept 9, 2008 14:48:19 GMT 1
I don't agree, realism is important but should not interfear with "gameplay" which is even more important. SO I agree with Nikeboy and Gelies. I guess youre used to Hattrick where the reality is also farfetched... But look at the game sokker where the game is very close to reality and mucht more fun. not really I don't play either of them (and not plaaning to either, I 'm not into football) and in this case I think the realism would spoil a (small) part of the fun, because it would mean that a smaller group of cyclists will win even more. (It would make it a lot easier for the yellow jersey to also win the sprint or mountain jersey). (edited text in italics)
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 9, 2008 14:52:36 GMT 1
I honestly don't know what youre talking about. It wouldnt influwense prices at al.
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Sept 9, 2008 15:11:39 GMT 1
I honestly don't know what youre talking about. It wouldnt influwense prices at al. Sorry, what I meant was that some cyclists would win even more "trophees"
|
|
|
Post by captagon on Sept 9, 2008 23:24:04 GMT 1
Sprinting should NOT give time benefits, changing this now would be a slap in the face for those who actually understood the game all this time and adjusted their team to it. Ever seen Armstrong (or any other tour winner of the last 20 years) sprint the last 3 km of every mountain in every mountain-stage in the TdF? NO, because it simply is a bad idea if you want to win time. You'll get tired, and use up more fitness, or fall behind in the end of the stage-. For those that want to win the stage and win the mountain sprints: use more fitness. If you want to win tours, stages, and mountain/sprint jerseys with the same rider in the same tour: train an Eddy Merckx, or play an other game.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 10, 2008 15:03:28 GMT 1
This doesnt make any sense. Sprinting should give time benefits in the sprint itself. When does a cyclist sprint? Not on a mountain, that's called climbing not in a steady tempo. We call it sprint when you're on a flat or semi-flat terrain. Take away the rule of calculating sprint on the last 1/3d of the race (not shure this is exactly right) an give the cyclist selected for sprints something extra. For instance like philipoes says here: I have got two possible solutions: 1) In the kilometers approaching the sprint the competing cyclists gain a boost for the terrain they are currently on for about 0.2 for each point in their sprint-skill. 2) Results for the cyclists competing in sprints are saved at the kilometer each sprint is, then a seperate sprint is simulated each time. The sum of these time differences determines who wins the sprint. I'm ok with the way points for mountainjersey is calculated, it's the way sprints ar calculated, not youre example of winning mounain sprints.
|
|
|
Post by captagon on Sept 11, 2008 14:06:22 GMT 1
I don't think you get cycling...
competing for mountain points has a bad effect on your overall standing, competing for sprint-points decreases your chances of winning the race.
It would be way too easy, and unrealistic, if you could just appoint 1 or 2 cyclists to gain some time advantage.
If you think competing for mountain/sprint points should give time benefits, please explain me this: Why did rasmussen, when he wore the yellow jersey stopped competing for the mountain points? Why do the top-favourits not join the jalaberts, virenques, fuentesses, etc etc, when they go for the mountain points at the end of each climb? Why do mcEwen, Boonen, Cavendish, Freire, Hushovdt, etc etc etc not compete for every intermediate sprint in a flat stage? According to your reasoning, they're all morons, cause they are depriving themselves from a clear time benefit with no drawbacks. Is it accurate to say that, in your eyes, actual cyclism isn't realistic, and this game should adjust to your views on realism?
|
|
|
Post by boucthesurvivor on Sept 11, 2008 14:52:55 GMT 1
Because nobody can follow Virenque!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 11, 2008 15:45:59 GMT 1
I don't think you get cycling... competing for mountain points has a bad effect on your overall standing, competing for sprint-points decreases your chances of winning the race. It would be way too easy, and unrealistic, if you could just appoint 1 or 2 cyclists to gain some time advantage. If you think competing for mountain/sprint points should give time benefits, please explain me this: Why did rasmussen, when he wore the yellow jersey stopped competing for the mountain points? Why do the top-favourits not join the jalaberts, virenques, fuentesses, etc etc, when they go for the mountain points at the end of each climb? Why do mcEwen, Boonen, Cavendish, Freire, Hushovdt, etc etc etc not compete for every intermediate sprint in a flat stage? According to your reasoning, they're all morons, cause they are depriving themselves from a clear time benefit with no drawbacks. Is it accurate to say that, in your eyes, actual cyclism isn't realistic, and this game should adjust to your views on realism? Everyone keeps talking about the mountainjersey points. My main concern is green-jersey where they actually SPRINT. I'll try to explain with an example: 12 flat 2 sprint enters for the green jersey. 7 flat 6 sprint enters for the green jersey The 12 flat should reach every sprinting point including winning the race before the 7 flat could start thinking about a sprint. Yet the 7 flat could in this case win every sprint in the race. NOT realistic. That's what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Sept 11, 2008 16:07:45 GMT 1
I don't think you get cycling... competing for mountain points has a bad effect on your overall standing, competing for sprint-points decreases your chances of winning the race. It would be way too easy, and unrealistic, if you could just appoint 1 or 2 cyclists to gain some time advantage. If you think competing for mountain/sprint points should give time benefits, please explain me this: Why did rasmussen, when he wore the yellow jersey stopped competing for the mountain points? Why do the top-favourits not join the jalaberts, virenques, fuentesses, etc etc, when they go for the mountain points at the end of each climb? Why do mcEwen, Boonen, Cavendish, Freire, Hushovdt, etc etc etc not compete for every intermediate sprint in a flat stage? According to your reasoning, they're all morons, cause they are depriving themselves from a clear time benefit with no drawbacks. Is it accurate to say that, in your eyes, actual cyclism isn't realistic, and this game should adjust to your views on realism? Everyone keeps talking about the mountainjersey points. My main concern is green-jersey where they actually SPRINT. I'll try to explain with an example: 12 flat 2 sprint enters for the green jersey. 7 flat 6 sprint enters for the green jersey The 12 flat should reach every sprinting point including winning the race before the 7 flat could start thinking about a sprint. Yet the 7 flat could in this case win every sprint in the race. NOT realistic. That's what I mean. Why do you think the 7 flat would win of the 12 flat ? That is not how it works ! The only thing is that the 7 flat will loose less time on the 3 sprint kms. then the 12 flat, but in the 50 km or more before the sprint he probably would have gained enough time to cover that loss ! In your suggestion there would not be a drawback for selecting someone for sprints (but even an advantage) , which just would make it easier for some cyclists to win everything !
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 11, 2008 16:09:19 GMT 1
Why do you think the 7 flat would win of the 12 flat ? That is not how it works !
IN SPRINTS, and he shouldnt because the 12 flat has already past the point where the sprint is.
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Sept 11, 2008 16:17:14 GMT 1
a race doesn't exist of sprint only, or what do you mean !?
I give an example in simplified mathematics, maybe then you understand : take an average basic speed of 45km +.5 km/h per skillpoint : cyclist 1 would race 50km at 51km/h and 3km at 46km/h => average speed => 50,72 km/h cyclist 2 would race 50km at 48.5 km/h and 3km at 48 km/h => average speed => 48,47 km/h
|
|
|
Post by captagon on Sept 11, 2008 16:24:14 GMT 1
"Why do you think the 7 flat would win of the 12 flat ? That is not how it works !" IN SPRINTS, and he shouldnt because the 12 flat has already past the point where the sprint is. and he won't... just as you said. The 12 flat (if selected) will win the sprint if he reaches it first, which he probably will, if the sprint is not in the first 10km. btw, are hou aware of the fact that (if on flat) the flat skill is still taken into account on those 3km of sprint? it's just that the sprintskill is doubled in importance.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 11, 2008 16:26:04 GMT 1
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Maybe I'm not very good in explaining what I mean eather.
What I mean is pretty simple.
I used 7 and 10 flat in my example: these numbers are fictive. I don't want to start counting. It's just the idea behind it all.
This is another try to explain: My cyclist isnt selected for the green-jersey because he has 3 sprint. When I don't enter him, he wil be faster because he uses his 8 flat. His time is faster. Ik he would have entered for the green jersey he would end up way behind his normal arrival time and that's what is wrong.
I got some more ideas to explain but I'm not good enough with my english, srry
|
|